>> it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that an incredibly powerful and intelligent being designed our universe to support life
This conclusion does not follow from the premises!
I'd agree that it'd be true, except fine tuning can have other explanations.
And in fact, those other explanations are ones that are logically impossible for us to rule out - which means the FTA for God's existence can never work alone.
Excellent post. I think Luke Barnes and Geraint F. Lewis, "A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos" (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016) are an excellent read on this. (Luke is a Christian, Geraint an atheist. They agree on all the fine-tuning stuff — and the last chapter is a fascinating discussion on where they see the evidence leads). => https://amzn.to/4vqkq8t
Thanks, Andy. I appreciate your work! Yes, I think Luke Barnes is doing some of the best work these days on fine-tuning. I hope he'll write another volume on that topic before too long. The Christian Post republished this article, and I had some good interaction with skeptics in the comments section.
Hi Chris, glad you've come across Luke — yes, he's excellent and writes and communicates brilliantly.
I was also surprised (pleasantly so) to come across a really positive engagement with fine tuning in Ray Kurzweil's updated book, "The Singularity is Nearer" (2025). Ray is in weird territory around AI stuff (especially the 'humans merging with AI' stuff) ... but what's fascinating is he's concluded that a "Whoever" (his word) must have kickstarted the universe — and then he unpacks the fine tuning argument in a couple of pages (quoting Luke Barnes).
As far as I know, Kurzweil has no faith to speak of — but it encouraged me that somebody of his reputation (and reach) has come across the argument, thinks it holds, and is now advocating for it.
I still love that Fred Hoyle quote about a super-intellect having monkeyed with the laws of physics!
That's cool to hear about Ray Kurzweil. Hopefully that kind of thing will eventually trickle down to the everyday skeptic. In response to the quotes I listed in the article, one guy at the Christian Post commented:
"Arguments from dead authorities... Figures that's what you'd cite. Sorry, chum. You're delulu..."
That's the kind of thing that can be classified, I think, as "not even wrong."
That's like Peak New Atheism at its worst; indeed it's almost Village Atheism. If one wished to be cheeky, one could ask: "Could you show me an essay you've written where every quote is from (a) a living person but (b) not an authority that, as an atheist, you'd cite" ... otherwise, this looks like either hypocrisy ... or delusion. 🤔
Well done bearing with the mad comments. Plus is I find these comments encouraging as they tell you that non-Christians are reading you! Behind every mad Late New Atheist are many more thoughtful sceptics/seekers/searchers reading ... 🙏
That's a good point. I'm glad they're stopping by and commenting. Probably a lot of that kind of thing is bluster--when they realize they don't have much to say in response. If the article or comments put a rock in their shoe, that's a victory.
Excellent! One of the most powerful arguments from science for atheists to seriously consider. I did and it set me on a path toward believing in God. Thank you!
>> it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that an incredibly powerful and intelligent being designed our universe to support life
This conclusion does not follow from the premises!
I'd agree that it'd be true, except fine tuning can have other explanations.
And in fact, those other explanations are ones that are logically impossible for us to rule out - which means the FTA for God's existence can never work alone.
https://ramblingafter.substack.com/p/infinity-kills-the-fine-tuning-argument
Excellent post. I think Luke Barnes and Geraint F. Lewis, "A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos" (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016) are an excellent read on this. (Luke is a Christian, Geraint an atheist. They agree on all the fine-tuning stuff — and the last chapter is a fascinating discussion on where they see the evidence leads). => https://amzn.to/4vqkq8t
Thanks, Andy. I appreciate your work! Yes, I think Luke Barnes is doing some of the best work these days on fine-tuning. I hope he'll write another volume on that topic before too long. The Christian Post republished this article, and I had some good interaction with skeptics in the comments section.
Hi Chris, glad you've come across Luke — yes, he's excellent and writes and communicates brilliantly.
I was also surprised (pleasantly so) to come across a really positive engagement with fine tuning in Ray Kurzweil's updated book, "The Singularity is Nearer" (2025). Ray is in weird territory around AI stuff (especially the 'humans merging with AI' stuff) ... but what's fascinating is he's concluded that a "Whoever" (his word) must have kickstarted the universe — and then he unpacks the fine tuning argument in a couple of pages (quoting Luke Barnes).
As far as I know, Kurzweil has no faith to speak of — but it encouraged me that somebody of his reputation (and reach) has come across the argument, thinks it holds, and is now advocating for it.
I still love that Fred Hoyle quote about a super-intellect having monkeyed with the laws of physics!
Keep up the great work.
That's cool to hear about Ray Kurzweil. Hopefully that kind of thing will eventually trickle down to the everyday skeptic. In response to the quotes I listed in the article, one guy at the Christian Post commented:
"Arguments from dead authorities... Figures that's what you'd cite. Sorry, chum. You're delulu..."
That's the kind of thing that can be classified, I think, as "not even wrong."
That's like Peak New Atheism at its worst; indeed it's almost Village Atheism. If one wished to be cheeky, one could ask: "Could you show me an essay you've written where every quote is from (a) a living person but (b) not an authority that, as an atheist, you'd cite" ... otherwise, this looks like either hypocrisy ... or delusion. 🤔
Well done bearing with the mad comments. Plus is I find these comments encouraging as they tell you that non-Christians are reading you! Behind every mad Late New Atheist are many more thoughtful sceptics/seekers/searchers reading ... 🙏
That's a good point. I'm glad they're stopping by and commenting. Probably a lot of that kind of thing is bluster--when they realize they don't have much to say in response. If the article or comments put a rock in their shoe, that's a victory.
Excellent! One of the most powerful arguments from science for atheists to seriously consider. I did and it set me on a path toward believing in God. Thank you!
Thanks, Mark!